Papers › Can AI Be a Good Peer Reviewer? A Survey of Peer Review Process, Evaluation, and the Future

Can AI Be a Good Peer Reviewer? A Survey of Peer Review Process, Evaluation, and the Future

30 Apr 2026arXiv:2604.27924added by Syntology

Sihong Wu, Owen Jiang, Yilun Zhao, Tiansheng Hu, Yiling Ma, Kaiyan Zhang, Manasi Patwardhan, Arman Cohan

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

Peer review is a multi-stage process involving reviews, rebuttals, meta-reviews, final decisions, and subsequent manuscript revisions. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have motivated methods that assist or automate different stages of this pipeline. In this survey, we synthesize techniques for (i) peer review generation, including fine-tuning strategies, agent-based systems, RL-based methods, and emerging paradigms to enhance generation; (ii) after-review tasks including rebuttals, meta-review and revision aligned to reviews; and (iii) evaluation methods spanning human-centered, reference-based, LLM-based and aspect-oriented. We catalog datasets, compare modeling choices, and discuss limitations, ethical concerns, and future directions. The survey aims to provide practical guidance for building, evaluating, and integrating LLM systems across the full peer review workflow.

Code

Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Syntology holds the repository link but has not harvested or run code from it.

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2604.27924, was issued in April 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections